We are not at war, but we are no longer at peace either. We must do much more for our own security”, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned his audience a few days ago.
His gloomy thoughts were echoed by many a prime minister present during the EU’s Copenhagen summit on October 1, 2025. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen spoke about Europe’s growing peril, “I think we are in the most difficult and dangerous situation since the end of the Second World War”.
Yet, for all the talk about strengthened defence (to quote Lithuanian president Gitanas Nauseda, “plans and documents would not defend EU borders”), increased budgets for militaries and all the calls urging the continent that “now is the time here to take action” (as Finland’s Prime Minister Petteri Orpo said), the summit’s script was an almost perfect copy of many such previous events.
Much ado about nothing.
A lot of talk, in fact almost double of the originally allotted time; spiced up with a little theatrics and a royal gala dinner.
But not much on substance.
The most important takeaway had nothing to do with European defence and a lot more with the ever-growing doubt of Member States when it comes to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa.
Their proposals failed to gain enough support.
One after the other.
Use frozen Russian assets to finance a loan to Ukraine?
Nah, thanks, unless you can convince us that the plan is 200 percent sound legally. Nobody really wants to pay back billions to Russia would not that be the case. Not even countries on the more hawkish side of the anti-Russia spectrum (think Belgium) want to take that step. Von der Leyen’s reassurance that Ukraine would have to repay the loan if Russia paid compensation for the destruction caused by the war didn’t do the trick, either.
A drone wall to protect the borders of the bloc and jam incoming Russian drones?
Maybe, but not managed by the Commission, said both Germany and France, then President Macron added that he was “wary”, and things needed to be “a little more sophisticated”. A fancy, French-led new project could maybe divert attention from the ever-deepening political saga in Paris, after all.
Others raised questions regarding the financing of the project, along with another initiative, the “Eastern Flank Watch”.
Countries on the Southern flank expressed their well justified demand that something built from the common budget protected their borders, too.
Fast track Ukraine’s EU membership?
Probably everybody expected Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán to lead the no-votes, thus it might have come as a surprise that it wasn’t him, but the joint opposition from the Netherlands, France and Greece that vetoed the plan.
Given the Hague’s staunch resistance to EU enlargement during the last decade, it’s hardly surprising that they didn’t want to give such a powerful tool to the European Council. Now, it would aid Ukraine and to get around Hungarian veto, sure. But in a couple of years, it could be used for other purposes.
Thus, while everybody agrees in theory that something must be done, consensus doesn’t seem to be any closer than it was before the summit.
Except when it comes to the subtle, but still quite noticeable change in attitudes towards the Commission and the Council.
A modernized and European version of the Declaration of Independence, sending the message to Brussels from the capitals: we are still in charge.
